As I said earlier in this topic, the pilot made a total hash of the landing.

"...aviation expert and former designer at Sukhoi Design Bureau, Vadim Lukashevich, said: 'I believe that this catastrophe is a consequence of a set of mistakes of pilots that began from the moment when lightning hit the plane.

'It caused problems but they were not critical.

'The decision to return was right.

'But then the pilots had to remember they actually are pilots and had to fly the plane the way that was normal for international aviation 40 years ago, without autopilot.

'To my knowledge, the commander of the aircraft Denis Evdokimov who has flown over 1,400 hours on SSJ-100 had never landed in Direct Mode (fully manually).

'They were landing normally, with a glide path but they pushed the nose down and increased the speed before landing.

'It was lucky that the front gear didn't break. If that happened, the consequences would have been even worse."

'To my knowledge, the commander of the aircraft Denis Evdokimov who has flown over 1,400 hours on SSJ-100 had never landed in Direct Mode (fully manually).'

That is absolutely staggering

Isn't it time airlines started making pilots undergo flight tests that put a lot more emphasis on hand flying skills?

jim

And therein lies the question
landed in Direct Mode

For the Airbus "drivers", a question, how easy is it to regain control after a bounced landing when in Direct Law

As I am trying to understand, "Direct mode/Law" means manual rudder, and manual Elevator/Stabilizer trim...ONLY
How quickly can one react on the manual Elevator/Stabilizer trim, after a bounced first landing ?, to prevent the large nose down porpoise and pitch seen in the video..?

sometimes we suffer a bit from C.R.A.F.T. sickness..Can't Remember A F@#%ing Thing

Hi Jim,
Whilst I note your remark about the pilot not even thinking of a "Go-around", I would like to think that a commander of an aircraft is "good enough" to land the airplane he is responsible for by his own skills, - specially in an emergency, first time round ???
I am afraid that when we start looking at all the mistakes, poor flying skills, poor decisions, poor information from aircraft manufacturers, poor this and poor that - then in my opinion the total Aviation Scene is in rather a POOR STATE ???

Any commander should have been able to return that Sukhoi 100 jet to the airport in an emergency and managed to land off the first approach without any difficulty !! It is really beginning to look like all this new fangled technology leaves much to be desired and computer fundi's are trying to call the shots on "how an aeroplane should be piloted ??

That poor landing killed all the plus minus 41 unsuspecting and "trusting in the crew" pax !! What a poor show to say the least ??
Add to that your statement of no experience in 1400 hours about direct piloting ?? - and I seriously am beginning to doubt the current skills level ??

The World seriously require a few instructors from the "Old School" - me thinks ???

I suppose it boils down to "How much Pitch Authority" and REACTION is available in "Direct Law", utilizing the MANUAL TRIM system only.

Direct law is not to be confused with manual backup, as you have for example with stabilizer trim.

In direct law in an Airbus you still have all controls available. However there is now a direct relationship between control input from the side stick and output at the control surface. There are very limited protections available. You no longer have bank angle protection etc. What you ask for is what you get.

In normal law you cannot for example bank past certain limits. In direct law you can do as you please. The computers do not intervene. Direct law is the "dumbest" form of fly by wire if I could put it that way.

I am not sure if the SSJ is similar or not.

Another interesting point: the Airbus will sum pilot inputs from their respective sides sticks. One stick full nose down and another full nose up the aircraft does nothing. If you are both pushing half of it's full travel you will get an output as if you were pushing one stick full forward and so on and so forth.

Another interesting point: the Airbus will sum pilot inputs from their respective sides sticks. One stick full nose down and another full nose up the aircraft does nothing. If you are both pushing half of it's full travel you will get an output as if you were pushing one stick full forward and so on and so forth.

I did not know that. You are right, that is really interesting.
Thanks, I have learned something today. I can now close shop, go home and sit on the stoep.

Edit: Actually makes sense: My Sling 2 works the same way. Just translate side stick movement into stick force on the Sling. Same net effect. Back to work...

Another interesting point: the Airbus will sum pilot inputs from their respective sides sticks. One stick full nose down and another full nose up the aircraft does nothing. If you are both pushing half of it's full travel you will get an output as if you were pushing one stick full forward and so on and so forth.

I did not know that. You are right, that is really interesting.
Thanks, I have learned something today. I can now close shop, go home and sit on the stoep.

Edit: Actually makes sense: My Sling 2 works the same way. Just translate side stick movement into stick force on the Sling. Same net effect. Back to work...

Surely it averages the inputs, not sums them, or you would have odd flying characteristics.

so if both half up, it averages to half up.
one full up, one half up, its 3/4 up.
one up one down averages to neutral.

if you sum it and both are full up, you will get more than usual up, causing bad control issues ?

Another interesting point: the Airbus will sum pilot inputs from their respective sides sticks. One stick full nose down and another full nose up the aircraft does nothing. If you are both pushing half of it's full travel you will get an output as if you were pushing one stick full forward and so on and so forth.

I did not know that. You are right, that is really interesting.
Thanks, I have learned something today. I can now close shop, go home and sit on the stoep.

Edit: Actually makes sense: My Sling 2 works the same way. Just translate side stick movement into stick force on the Sling. Same net effect. Back to work...

Surely it averages the inputs, not sums them, or you would have odd flying characteristics.

so if both half up, it averages to half up.
one full up, one half up, its 3/4 up.
one up one down averages to neutral.

if you sum it and both are full up, you will get more than usual up, causing bad control issues ?

It is summed, not averaged. Up to a certain maximum. You cannot move the control surface more than maximum travel? If both half up, you get full up. Like in a conventional control aircraft you can both pull or push together, or "fight" each other of you wanted to.

You will get a "DUAL INPUT" aural warning if both sticks are being used. They also have a takeover button which if held long enough disables the other side stick. Or it can be used to temporarily override the other side stick. If a takeover button is pushed you receive a "PRIORITY LEFT/RIGHT" aural warning to indicate which stick is active.

Summing would make perfect sense. If I translate that into my own aircraft - One person pushes his stick forward - the other pulls his back, both with the same force and the net result is the stick does not move.
Conversely, if both push their sticks forward with a force of 1Kg the total force is 2Kg so it is summation (let's not argue about Newtons vs Kg).
Since the Airbus side sticks don't have force feedback (I am assuming) it makes sense to use relative movement of the sticks instead. It's a fair substitution.

Summing would make perfect sense. If I translate that into my own aircraft - One person pushes his stick forward - the other pulls his back, both with the same force and the net result is the stick does not move.
Conversely, if both push their sticks forward with a force of 1Kg the total force is 2Kg so it is summation (let's not argue about Newtons vs Kg).
Since the Airbus side sticks don't have force feedback (I am assuming) it makes sense to use relative movement of the sticks instead. It's a fair substitution.

They make use of springs and dampers internally. The stick requires progressively more force to move it from neutral to all the way against a stop. The force isn't related to any "feel" of the flight controls themselves. No matter what the aircraft is doing it requires the same force to move the stick into any given position.